April 1, 1965
PAGE 6532
INTRODUCTION OF S.1681, THE UNIFORM RELOCATION ACT OF 1965
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to achieve consistency and equity in the treatment of those forced to relocate by Federal and federally aided public improvement programs.
Relocation is a serious and growing problem in the United States. Thousands of people and businesses are forced to move every year because of Government projects, particularly urban renewal and highways. All indications are that this pace of displacement will accelerate with increased urbanization and the consequent mounting demands for urban services. It has been estimated that in the next 4 to 8 years, Federal and federally aided programs will displace an average of about 111,000 families and individuals, 18,000 businesses and nonprofit organizations, and 4,000 farm operators each year. The federally assisted programs alone -- mostly urban renewal and highway programs -- are estimated to displace about 106,000 or 96 percent of the families and individuals, 17,000 or 96 percent of the businesses and nonprofit organizations, and 1,350 or 34 percent of the farms.
The highway program alone will account for 37,000 families and individuals, 4,000 businesses and nonprofit organizations, and 1,400 farm operations. Recently, both the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, on which I serve as a member from this body, and the staff of the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, of the House Public Works Committee, issued reports documenting the case that the Federal, State, and local governments are falling far short of equity in treatment of those displaced by governmental programs. In its report, "Relocation: Unequal Treatment of People and Businesses Displaced by Governments," the Advisory Commission recommends legislative and administrative action by the Federal Government, the States and local governments to achieve reasonable consistency among governmental programs and ease the disruptive effects of forced displacement. This legislation which I am introducing today is designed to implement the Commission's recommendations applicable to Federal and federally assisted programs.
In its study, the Advisory Commission cooperated with the U.S. Conference of Mayors in surveying the relocation practices and problems of the Nation's 131 largest cities. The Commission found great inconsistencies among Federal and federally assisted programs with respect to the amount and scope of relocation payments, advisory assistance, and assurance of the availability of standard housing. The urban renewal program makes the most comprehensive provision for relocation assistance; the Federal aid highway program is appreciably less generous. Thus, a homeowner whose property is taken for a federally aided urban renewal project is entitled to moving costs up to $200. His neighbor, whose property is taken for a federally aided highway program, is also entitled to $200, but only if the State has authorized participation in the Federal relocation program.
Twenty-eight States had not authorized such payments as of December 1964, and even among the States that had, an appreciable number had not authorized payments up to the Federal limit, or not for tenants and lessees. Inconsistency in payment of business moving expenses is even greater, since the Federal Aid Highway Act allows such expenses only up to $3,000, whereas displacement by a federally aided urban renewal project entitles the businessman to as much as $25,000 for moving costs. Finally, Federal urban renewal provides fairly comprehensive advice and counseling to displacees; the Federal highway Program provides no such service to businesses and individuals.
Among the other findings in the Commission study is the fact that the single greatest problem in relocating families and individuals is the shortage of standard housing for low income groups. Nonwhites have the great problem of all population groups, but large families and the elderly also present special housing Problems.
Among business displacees, small businesses -- particularly those owned and operated by the elderly, such as "Mom and Pop" grocery stores -- are major casualties. They have less capital, find it more difficult to secure outside financing, and have little energy or spirit to resume business in a new location.
Advisory assistance is of growing importance in the relocation process. The poor, the nonwhite, the elderly, the small business people need intensive counseling to prepare them for displacement and to help them carry out their moves.
Finally, the relocation process often discloses the social and economic needs of displaced persons. This provides a unique opportunity for effective application of local, State, and Federal programs dealing with the less privileged social and economic groups, such as housing, public assistance, education, employment, and job training.
With the continual growth of Government property acquisitions -- particularly in the urban renewal and Federal highway programs -- there has been more and more concern that something be done to make Federal relocation programs more uniform and ease the impact of forced moves. Both President Kennedy and President Johnson have expressed concern over the human costs and the lack of uniformity in relocation of both families and businesses. The 1962 Federal Aid Highway Act was passed at President Kennedy's urging that we "move toward equity among the various federally assisted programs causing displacement." He recommended bringing the highway provisions up to the urban renewal provisions: but, although relocation payments and assistance were authorized in the 1962 highway act, they still fall far short of the urban renewal program. Groups of public officials, like the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, have consistently urged uniformity among Federal programs. Finally, the House Committee on Public Works in late 1961 set up the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition to examine the problem of relocation as part of its study of the broad question of problems arising from governmental property acquisitions.
The bill I am introducing would establish uniformity of relocation payments and advisory assistance programs for those displaced by Federal and federally assisted programs. Compliance with these relocation requirements would be a condition of Federal grants to State and local governments. The bill would impose on all federally assisted programs the present urban renewal requirement that no property acquisition project may proceed until there is assurance of available standard housing for all those displaced.
Finally, for federally aided programs the bill would provide full Federal reimbursement of all individual relocation payments up to a maximum of $25,000, and above that, Federal sharing according to the project's cost-sharing formula. Urban renewal and public housing now pay up to $25,000, fully reimbursed by the Federal Government, for business moving expenses. The Federal highway program now allows only up to $3,000 for individual businesses, reimbursed by the Federal Government on a 90-10 basis for interstate and 50-50 for primary-secondary highways. The bill would thus make Federal reimbursement 100 percent up to $25,000 and would assure that relocation payments will be made in the 28 States where highway displacees are not now entitled to such payments.
The bill's provisions with respect to uniformity of relocation payments and advisory assistance, the assurance of availability of standard housing, and Federal reimbursement in grant-in-aid programs, carry out recommendations of the Advisory Commission.
The provisions on the level of relocation payments are my own recommendations and are essentially similar to the recommendations of the House Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition. They would, I believe, provide an adequate and yet not overly generous level of compensation for the costs of moving and related expenses for those displaced by all types of Federal Government activity, many of whom presently receive little or no compensation.
It has been roughly estimated that this bill would increase Federal costs of relocation payments by about $28 million. I submit that this will be a small price to pay to finally obtain just and adequate treatment of those who happen to be in the way of Government projects. We must constantly bear in mind here that those most often displaced are just those who are least able to move and find adequate housing or a new business location -- the poor, the nonwhite, the elderly, and the small businessman.
This bill is consistent in most respects with the goals of the draft legislation prepared by the staff of the House Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition and introduced by my esteemed colleague, Senator SPARKMAN, as S. 1201. The Senator's bill deals not only with relocation policies but with such matters as Federal policies on acquisition of property under eminent domain procedures, determination of the fair value of property acquired, litigation expenses, and assistance offered to displacees by such programs as the Manpower Development and Training Act and the Social Security Act. My bill concentrates on relocation issues, and once and for all establishes a uniform Federal policy of requiring all federally assisted programs to assure the availability of adequate housing as a condition of a Federal grant-in-aid. It also offers greater assurance that State and local governments will make adequate payments for moving businesses by providing full Federal reimbursement up to $25,000 for each displaced business, and reimbursing above $25,000 on the basis of the project's cost-sharing formula.
I look forward to prompt and thorough hearings on this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed with the bill following my remarks.